Teaching Us to Fear - The Violent Video Game Moral Panic and the Politics of Game Research

Oct 15, 2026

A defense of violent video games argues against claims that gameplay causes real-world violence and examines how “moral panics” emerge and spread. The text defines moral panic as fears that vastly exceed actual harm, then traces how political rhetoric and funded psychological research shaped scientific study of games. Historical examples include U.S. legislation efforts and Supreme Court rejection, followed by analysis of the effects on research and the perpetuation of an unsupported anti-violent-games agenda.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages17

Reading Time43 min

AccessFree to download

Overview and Argument

Moral panics and their definition

Historical political context and legal outcomes

Effects on scientific game research

Teaching Us to Fear The Violent Video Game Moral Panic and the Politics of Game Research • Patrick M. Markey and Christopher J. Ferguson In this excerpt from their new book, Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games Is Wrong (BenBella Books, 2017), the authors present an argument in defense of video games while dispelling the myth that such games lead to real-world violence. The authors define and examine moral panicsand provide guidelines for identifying and understanding this phenomenon. They focus in particular on how the moral panic around video games has affected scientific research on games. Keywords: gaming, moral panic, videogame research; video games, video game violence; Back in 2005 , atthe height of the Second Gulf War, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton held a press conference to focus national attention on the scourge that was putting so many of our nation’s youth at risk: violent video games. Along with senators Joseph Lieberman, Tim Johnson, and Evan Bayh, Clinton introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, a law that would have put the teeth of federal enforcement behind the existing Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) classification of video game content. While the age guidelines associated with these ratings were already enforced by major retailers—who were obviously invested in maintaining their family-friendly images—doing so was technically voluntary. The proposed bill would have changed all that: any retailer who sold an M-rated game (similar to an R-rated movie) to a minor would have faced fines and community service. “It is almost routine in popular games for players to spray other people with Uzis, to drive over pedestrians, to kill police officers, to attack women, and in some cases even to engage in cannibalism,” said Clinton. Referencing the work of several researchers (since discredited), she continued,“According to the most comprehensive statistical analysis yet conducted, violent video games increase aggressive behavior as much as lead exposure decreases children’s IQ scores. . . . Everybody 99 American Journal of Play, volume 10, number 1 © The Strong [Contact Patrick M. Markey at patrick.markey@villanova.edu](Contact Patrick M. Markey at patrick.markey@villanova.edu) Adapted from Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games Is Wrong published by BenBella Books, Inc. © 2017 by Patrick M. Markey and Christopher J. Ferguson. All rights reserved. knows lead poisoning is bad for children, well I want everybody to know that exposure to violent video games is also bad for children.” Later, Clinton assured listeners that the legislation “is not about government censorship or regulation of content. Quite simply it is about protecting children and empowering parents. We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco, alcohol, and pornography.” Clinton wrapped things up by saying,“If you put it just really simply, these violent video games are stealing the innocence of our children.”1 Clinton’s bill never made it out of committee, and in 2011 the United States Supreme Court ruled that all such legislation was unconstitutional and that research evidence could not support claims that it was necessary.2 The court declared that video games are art and that, if they are sometimes violent, this is no different from literature, film, or even fairy tales. But if comparing videogames to lead poisoning seems bizarrely overdramatic, Clinton was hardly the only one making such inflammatory statements. Politicians seemed more passionate in their rhetoric about video game violence than they did discussing mental health reform, the war in Iraq, poverty, or any number of issues urgently affecting the lives of young people. Yet, unlike those exposed to lead, millions of children were playing violent video games and growing up just fine. What was going on here? A moral panic set off a flurry of politically motivated and funded psychological research about why violen

FAQs

What does the excerpt say a “moral panic” is?

It describes moral panic as overblown fears of an innocuous “folk devil,” where the fear greatly exceeds the real threat posed. Such panics often blame a scapegoat for social problems that may be real or imagined.

How did political efforts involving violent video games influence research?

The excerpt argues that the moral panic prompted politically motivated and funded psychological research about why violent video games were harmful. It then examines how this shifted scientific research directions and supported an unfounded war on violent video games.

What legal outcome is discussed regarding violent video game legislation?

It states that the legislation failed to pass out of committee, and later the U.S. Supreme Court ruled similar laws unconstitutional, emphasizing that research evidence could not support claims of necessity. The court also characterized video games as art, comparing violence in games to literature and film.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by supergirl